Before the Higgins-Moore ACP issue was resolved, much was placed into the public domain. Please read, by way of example,

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/593953#message

Thus, the relevant question is not whether the client's information is known or has been improperly revealed so that claiming the privilege is now somehow futile. If that were the rule, then defendants would win just by doggedly repeating statements that should never have been uttered, and suggesting that the repetition has made plaintiffs' protestations futile. This is what defendants are trying to do here. Higgins's improper
statements are no more admissible as evidence in the Eastern District of Texas in 2007 than they were in the Northern District of California in 2005. By protesting Higgins's and former counsel's misconduct in 2004, and successfully litigating his ethics claims against them all the way to judgment and through appeal, Charles Moore has done all that he must to maintain the privilege. Neither the passage of time nor plaintiffs' failure to call the Discovery Hotline before defendants convened Higgins' deposition in 2007 has "laundered" Higgins improper statements. Defendants must make their inventorship case using evidence that is admissible.

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/593911#message

On a point of law, just because material can be found doesn't make it admissable, more so if it was in breach of ACP. The case for the Plaintiffs therefore appears much stronger than that for the Defendants. If, for any reason, the Court finds for the Plaintiffs, expect an immediate Appeal and potential delay to the jury trial.

Be well